alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 20, 1997

19649

#### Garcia v. Aizawa

Affirmed
Exhibit 32.3

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT COMPANY

(required by Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 of Central Illinois Light Company (the Registrant) as filed by the Registrant with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K/A), each undersigned officer of the Registrant does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:  April 21, 2006



/s/ Gary L. RainwaterGary L. RainwaterChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)




/s/ Warner L. BaxterWarner L. BaxterChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000879465
<NAME>                        TADEO HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,497,845
<SECURITIES>                                   4,435,763
<RECEIVABLES>                                  489,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                   111,500
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,008,235
<PP&E>                                         168,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                 70,896
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14,346,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,633,228
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,592
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,694,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14,346,495
<SALES>                                        1,528,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,528,814
<CGS>                                          893,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  893,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,683,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               111,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (444,237)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (444,237)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (444,237)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.03)



</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000492

30-OCT-2017

09:03 AM
#### Emanuel Wolf et al., Respondents, *v.*Nathan Glazer et al., Copartners Doing Business as Gemelli & Moccia, Defendants, and Nathan Glazer, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

March 3, 1959.

*523*Lipton <& Silverstein (Paul N. Wiener*of counsel), for appellant.

*Max E. Greenberg*and *Louis Cantor*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The order should be unanimously reversed on the law, with $10 costs and taxable disbursements to the defendant Grlazer and motion for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice is granted to the extent that judgment is rendered in favor of the appellant Grlazer against the plaintiff on the second and third causes of action, without costs. Severance of the action against Grlazer shall be provided for in the order and judgment to be entered. The second cause of action alleges a cause of action for breach of contract and is not grounded in fraud. Consequently, it is subject to the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 48 of the Civil Practice Act and not to the provisions of subdivision 5 of section 48. The fraud alleged constitutes, at most, fraud in the performance of the contract. Under such pleadings a cause of action is alleged only for breach of contract. *(Brick*v. *Cohn-Hall-Marx Co.,*276 N. Y. 259; *Conklin*v. *Draper,*229 App. Div. 227; *Tulloch*v. *Haselo,*218 App. Div. 313.) The cause of action such as is alleged in the complaint herein arises not upon the discovery of the facts constituting the breach of contract, but upon the happening of the breach itself. *(Guild*v. *Hopkins,*271 App. Div. 234; *Varga*v. *Credit-Suisse,*5 A D 2d 289.)

Even if the cause of action be considered as a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, the same result would be reached. *(Erbe*v. *Lincoln Rochester Trust Co.,*2 A D 2d 242; *Petnel*v. *American Tel. & Tel. Co.,*280 App. Div. 706; *Adolf Gobel, Inc.*v. *524*Hammer slough,*263 App. Div. 1, 2; *Lever*v. *Guaranty Trust Co. of N. Y.,*262 App. Div. 1044, 1045.)

Furthermore, considering all of the pleadings including the reply *(Weisman*v. *Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,*67 N. Y. S. 2d 604), it is clear that the issues raised in the present action were determined in the prior action and, consequently, the judgment in the prior action is *res judicata*to the issues raised herein.

As to the third cause of action, it appearing that the allegations attempt to set forth a cause of action for conspiracy among parties having contractual relationships, it must he held that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. *(Saco*v. *Sommers,*108 N. Y. S. 2d 467; *Friedman*v. *Roseth Corp.,*270 App. Div. 988, affid. 297 N. Y. 495; *Labow*v. *Pari-Ti Corp.,*272 App. Div. 890.)

Concur — Pette, Hart and Di Glovanna, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.
# C_2016202EN.01019301.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/193 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/193

---

Article 342

(ex Article 290 TEC)

(ex Article 290 TEC)

The rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Union shall, without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, be determined by the Council, acting unanimously by means of regulations.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Justin D. Benincasa, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|                        | Atlantic  Tele-Network, Inc. |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                        |                              |
| Date:  August 11, 2008 | By:                     | /s/  Justin D. Benincasa |
|                        |                              | Justin  D. Benincasa |
|                        |                              | Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

----
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 312 

Supporting raising awareness and educating the public about upper limb 

and lower limb differences. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2015 

Mr. KING of New York submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting raising awareness and educating the public about 

upper limb and lower limb differences. 

Whereas April is designated as ‘‘National Upper and Lower 

Limb Differences Month’’ and April 18 is designated as 

‘‘Wear Orange Day’’ to recognize upper and lower limb 

differences; 

Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) estimates that each year 1,500 babies in the 

United States are born with upper limb reductions and 

750 babies are born with lower limb reductions; 

Whereas the cause of limb differences at birth is unknown; 

and 

Whereas people with limb differences will face various difficulties, access to information is critical in the deterVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:37 Jun 12, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR312.IH HR312

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 312 IH 

mination of best treatment options so that they may live 

healthy and productive lives: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of ‘‘National Upper and Lower Limb Dif3 ferences Month’’ and ‘‘Wear Orange Day’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.2
 
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of AFG Investment Trust C (the "Trust"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Trusts Managing Trustee, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
  (1)  the Report of the Trust filed today fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 
 /s/ Richard K Brock
 Richard K Brock
 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of AFG ASIT Corp.,
 the Managing Trustee of the Trust
 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 November 14, 2003
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Fluor Enterprises, Inc. 

Under Contract No. FA8903-06-D-8512 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59134 

Donald M. Y enovkian II, Esq. 

Senior Counsel 

John S. Pachter, Esq. 

Kathryn T. Muldoon, Esq. 

Daniel Q. Homer, Esq. 

Smith Pachter Mc Whorter PLC 

Vienna, VA 

John L. Cammack, Esq. 

Michael & Cammack 

Stockton, CA 

Col Matthew J. Mulbarger, USAF 

Air Force Chief Trial Attorney 

Sarah L. Stanton, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Following a successful mediation at the Board, the parties have settled their 

dispute. The Board grants the parties' joint request dated 29 January 2016, and dismisses 

this appeal with prejudice. 

Dated: 2 February 2016 

Administrative 

REBAPAGE 

cA~ Judge 

~ 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals
27188

#### O'Neill v. State

Affirmed
**Exhibit 23.1** **Acknowledgement    of Independent Reserves Evaluators**     We agree to the inclusion in the Annual Report on    Form 10-K    for the year ended December 31, 2005, and filed pursuant to    Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934    of extracts and disclosures derived from our report to    Karakudukmunay JSC dated March 3, 2006, with respect to the    evaluation of crude oil reserves of Karakudukmunay JSC.     We also agree to the incorporation of extracts and disclosures    derived from our report dated March 3, 2006 with respect to    the evaluation of crude oil reserves of Karakudukmunay JSC    included in the Preliminary Proxy Statement dated April 28,    2006, and filed pursuant to Section 14(A) of the Securities    Exchange Act of 1934.     Sincerely,    McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd. */s/  B.H. Emslie                                                                   *
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017 (the “Report”),
I, L’Sheryl D. Hudson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                   
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2017 |  | /s/ L’Sheryl D. Hudson                            
|                    |  | L’Sheryl D. Hudson
        Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) ORRULE 15d-14(b)**

**OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I, Christopher Anzalone, Chief Executive Officer of Arrowhead Research Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: February 10, 2010 

 

A signed original of these written statements required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to Arrowhead Research Corporation and will be retained by Arrowhead Research Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### David MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3984.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

April 6, 1979.

Leonard T. Kelley, Anchorage, for appellant.

John A. Scukanec, Asst. Dist. Atty., Joseph D. Balfe, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Av-rum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for ap-pellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

*1248OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of second degree murder, in violation of AS 11.15.0301 and was sentenced to serve two consecutive 25 year terms. He appeals on the grounds that the sentence is excessive and contrary to law.

When he committed the crime in question appellant was 24 years old. He had no felony convictions and one misdemeanor larceny conviction. He was unemployed and addicted to heroin.

Appellant murdered two witnesses to a robbery he and an accomplice were then attempting to commit. One of his victims was a 6 year old child. Prior to the robbery he and his accomplice had agreed that he would shoot any witnesses.

We believe that the sentence is not excessive. Further, with the technical exception that the sentence should have reflected that credit is to be given for time served, it is in all respects lawful.2 In this regard we note that the combined effect of-the consecutive sentences for the two counts does not exceed the maximum sentence permitted for one count of second degree murder. Because of this is was unnecessary for the sentencing judge to make a formal finding that confinement for the combined term was necessary to protect the public. *Mutschler v. State,*560 P.2d 377, 381 (Alaska 1977). There is no ambiguity concerning the point at which appellant will first be eligible for parole consideration. That occurs when he has served one-third of the total period of confinement to which he has been sentenced, that is after 163⁄8 years. AS 33.15.080; *Thomas v. State,*566 P.2d 630, 633 (Alaska 1977).

The sentence is affirmed and the case is remanded with instructions to enter thereon a provision that credit is to be given for time served.

1

. AS 11.15.030 provides as follows:

> *Second degree murder.*Except as provided in §§ 10 and 20 of this chapter, a person .who purposely and maliciously kills another is guilty of murder in the second degree, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 15 years to life.

2

. AS 11.05.040 provides in pertinent part:

> *Computation of term of imprisonment and stay.*

> (a) When a person is sentenced to imprisonment, his term of confinement begins from the day of his sentence. A person who is sentenced shall receive credit toward service of his sentence for time spent in custody pending trial, or sentencing, or appeal, if that detention was in connection with the offense for which sentence was imposed.

*See Black v. State,*569 P.2d 804, 805-6 (Alaska 1977).

We have reviewed all of appellant’s assertions regarding the sentencing court’s alleged failure to give appropriate weight to relevant sentencing information. We find the claims to be without merit.
April 29, 1999

21832

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed
FO 7 Annual Producer Milk Diverted to nonpool plants, pounds and percent of total diverted milk, by source, 2000 – 2012.

Year Pool Order No. Producer Milk From Inside Marketing Area North & FL West & Unreg

00 7 646,943,392 114,925,907 855,657,137 

01 7 502,813,538 200,081,309 1,042,408,590 

02 7 536,318,888 262,098,722 1,119,669,205 

03 7 437,340,425 194,808,220 658,204,126 

04 7 354,068,367 103,398,684 969,086,642 

05 7 283,258,350 200,205,737 1,160,268,279 

06 7 339,280,106 242,915,757 1,508,367,982 

07 7 347,339,747 198,072,650 1,161,337,911 

08 7 218,770,241 131,458,347 749,245,463 

09 7 358,503,004 166,059,364 577,680,765 

10 7 295,445,327 133,316,851 615,465,703 

11 7 287,370,142 182,250,085 765,293,434 

12 7 274,440,912 223,557,092 592,787,111 

Year Pool Order No. Producer Milk From Inside Marketing Area North & FL West & Unreg

00 7 40% 7% 53%

01 7 29% 11% 60%

02 7 28% 14% 58%

03 7 34% 15% 51%

04 7 25% 7% 68%

05 7 17% 12% 71%

06 7 16% 12% 72%

07 7 20% 12% 68%

08 7 20% 12% 68%

09 7 33% 15% 52%

10 7 28% 13% 59%

11 7 23% 15% 62%

12 7 25% 20% 54%

North & Florida (farms located in FO 1,5,6,30 & 33) and West & Unregulated (farms located in FO 32, 126,131,135 & unregulated areas)
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 370 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 370

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 23, 2015.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3009) to amend section 241(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to deny assistance under such section to a State 
or political subdivision of a State that prohibits its officials from taking 
certain actions with respect to immigration. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
21115

#### Wallace v. University of Hawaii

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Integrated Plant Health Information

System Resources

Last Modified: 

Print

Training Materials

IPHIS Access Instructions (275.38 KB)

IPHIS User Access and Roles (241.4 KB)

Mobile Data Collection Tools (Video Gallery and Training Materials)
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply442Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  LT (not verified) (not verified)PermalinkMay 22, 2014 - 1:32pmThis is fascinating! What a great article!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe